[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I mean: may I be an anonymous Contributor?
Being forced to disclose my own real identity is a significant
restriction: it would render software under the CPL non-free (because
it's a fee, see DFSG#1).
This is in no way a fee.
--
ciao,
Marco
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email
Marco d'Itri [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I mean: may I be an anonymous Contributor?
Being forced to disclose my own real identity is a significant
restriction: it would render software under the CPL non-free (because
it's a fee, see DFSG#1).
This is in no way a
Ben Finney [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Regardless, a requirement to disclose one's real identity does fail
the Dissident test and is thus non-free.
URL:http://people.debian.org/~bap/dfsg-faq.html#dissident
#import Marco.rant/the-tests-have-no-basis-in-DFSG
I suspect they do, but I've not found it
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Regardless, a requirement to disclose one's real identity does fail
the Dissident test and is thus non-free.
This dissident test is not part of the DFSG, so it cannot make
something non-free.
--
ciao,
Marco
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject
MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Ben Finney [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I concur that it's not a fee[0].
[0] I do feel that an individual's private information is effectively
a valuable property that can be traded at the individual's discretion
in pieces for other things of value.
How do you
Hello,
In the spirit of Enrico's talk: where does the license ask for your _real_
identity?
Alle Monday 12 June 2006 11:23, Ben Finney ha scritto:
Marco d'Itri [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
This is in no way a fee.
I concur that it's not a fee[0].
/me nods
Regardless, a requirement to
* Francesco Poli:
I mean: may I be an anonymous Contributor?
Being forced to disclose my own real identity is a significant
restriction: it would render software under the CPL non-free (because
it's a fee, see DFSG#1).
On the other hand, being able to identify all contributors is vital
for
Florian Weimer [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On the other hand, being able to identify all contributors is vital
for reviewing the copyright status of a program, should there be any
doubt or copyright infringement claims. Programs with an unclear
copyright situation cannot be considered free, IMHO.
I
On Thu, 08 Jun 2006 20:40:09 +0200 Henning Makholm wrote:
Scripsit Roger Leigh [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Is the IBM Common Public Licence version 1.0 (below) considered
DFSG-free?
We have software under this licence in main already, notably postfix
and graphviz. The license has been discussed
Scripsit Roger Leigh [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Is the IBM Common Public Licence version 1.0 (below) considered
DFSG-free?
We have software under this licence in main already, notably postfix
and graphviz. The license has been discussed explicitly on
debian-legal at least once [1] and no flaws big
10 matches
Mail list logo
